ZZ2 - What's REAL, What's NOT .... or MAYBE!

[Dr. Alexander Lienau]

I am since more then 10 years to proud owner of the B19 Chassis No. 10.

After more than three years rearchwork I have assembled the complete documentation of not only all owners from day one but in addition every race and race result of my car. The B19 chassis no. 10 has had only six german and swiss owners.

The history of my car is approved by the FIA Heritage Certificate, which was granted to me last year.

I hope everybody with a Chevron B19 will join the orwell supersports cup 2009, but if any other Chevron B19 carries the Number 10 I recommed a addition of something saying that this is not the orginal car, for example addition "c" for continuation or "r" for replik or 10-2 etc.

Alexander

[Dermot Healy]

I think i now should lay claim to Chassis no B19-10(3). I will admit that it currently takes the form of some discarded office chairs constructed with small square section tubes, but i'm sure at some future date they could easily emerge as a B19 chassis and generate more opportunity for debate

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Dermot Healy

I think i now should lay claim to Chassis no B19-10(3). I will admit that it currently takes the form of some discarded office chairs constructed with small square section tubes, but i'm sure at some future date they could easily emerge as a B19 chassis and generate more opportunity for debate

I'll give you a tenner for the remains so long as there is a chassis plate!

[Dr. Alexander Lienau]

brilliant idea, but very time intensive. Buy a new B19 from Vin Malkie and give it the chassis No 71-19-10 (3?)

[chrisks]

Think you mean buy one from CHEVRON CARS and get
true continuation from the owners of the Chevron intellectual property and the only source of authentic chassis numbers!!
The number would be 19-08-10 not trying to be 1971.

[Delbert]

Originally Posted by Dr. Alexander Lienau

I hope everybody with a Chevron B19 will join the orwell supersports cup 2009, but if any other Chevron B19 carries the Number 10 I recommed a addition of something saying that this is not the orginal car, for example addition "c" for continuation or "r" for replik or 10-2 etc.
Alexander

I agree with Alexander. Those of us with the confidence to put our cars up for debate through the Heritage web site,or here at 10/10ths, probably means that we have some confidence that they are what they purport to be.

The other point about grid sizes for 2009 will rage long into the night but it would be great to get more of these wonderful cars on to the grids next year - especially if they are reflective of period and of the correct weight!

[driftwood]

now there is another great argument grid sizes in the credit crunch for 09
and weight well define weight?
do you work from the correct weight in 1972 3 4 for the cars in that class?
cars with wings fitted tend to be heavier and the argument rages for the wing cars having more drag in straight line and more weight versus the un winged car less weight
re cars with ID i would not go bragging abut what car i had until i had checked it out FULLY had the DNA of every owner and a letter from his grandmother as well as race results fotos etc to support my claim- when i have it with out ANY doubt then i would let folk know what car i have

[Simon Hadfield]

Quite right, take your absolutely authentic car to Supersports, race it with an engine it never had... on tyres it never raced on... against Can am cars with engine sizes and chassis specifications they never had... what a wonderful standard bearer for historic racing.

[John Turner]

Ok, guys, can I remind us all of the rules that we chose to apply to the chassis archive and signed up to in recognition of its research status. A bit of humour is fine but don't let it sidetrack constructive discussion. No offence intended to anybody but I've carried out a clean up (and might remove the deleted posts altogether, eventually).

Everyone knows my opinion on originality by now but I don't want people like Richard alienated from here because it is much better to have these discussions kept in the public eye and maybe reach some sensible solution. Ideally, any original chassis discarded should have been completely cut up and destroyed, but as we know this hasn't always happened and they have emerged years later rebuilt. As Steve says we need to deal with it sensibly.

Alexander's car has the continuous history that gives it the provenance, but it is surely a fact that its chassis hasn't done the early races contained within that provenance/history. So whilst recognising the status of Alexander's car, can we not suggest that Richard's chassis (provided it is the original as claimed, is identifiably so, and complete), rather than carrying a 'C' or 'R' suffix, neither of which in this case is entirely accurate, carries 'OCRB' for Original Chassis/Replica Body, or, at least something that identifies it as such. Record it on the register, to ensure that any future owner/buyer knows what he is getting. Much better to keep this all recorded and out in the open.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

Quite right, take your absolutely authentic car to Supersports, race it with an engine it never had... on tyres it never raced on... against Can am cars with engine sizes and chassis specifications they never had... what a wonderful standard bearer for historic racing.

[John Turner]

Incidentally, just for the record, I was obviously in the middle of drafting my post when Simon posted his, so hadn't seen it. Not a fan of Supersports, then Simon? I'm not sure whether to laugh, or shake my head in sagely fashion. However, may I gently steer this back to the thread topic - B19 chassis histories! Where are we with this then?

[Simon Hadfield]

OK.... as we are talking of B19s let us say that the remains of a car are left over, at what point did that chassis cease to be "the car". The chassis presumably still has its Arch motors number stamped into it, the original driver presumably sat in it, if further it comes with the suspension, some bodywork....... surely this is still the car? Granted I am playing devils advocate here but .......is this not a fundamental question for both our sport and our industry?

[driftwood]

1 the car i pass comment about is not related to the Doctors car- i cannot comment at this stage on alexanders car as i have not yet looked up the names associated with it
2 the chassi in question came from USA ( and i stepped away from purchaisnig it) and does have the arch motors number and came OFF the car that has been rebuilt whether rightly or wrongly with a host of new parts inc chassis body some suspension and is running with the original plate in usa
I do not know what gearbox number it has
Yes in theory the original parts should have been either cut up and binned or sold ith the "new" but "original" car to keep it togther and show its provenance
Three years ago the pile of parts would be worthless and could never be used in historic races a sit would not get FIA papers but basement max has screwed up the system and now recreation/continuation/fake/replicas can now get HTP FIA papers that allow them to race- this is sadly wrong however the pile of old parts does not have the right to carry the chassi plate B19-71-10- the owner of the car built another car and transferred all the parts and plate to new chassis body and the car lives in in just the same way as if he had crashed the car heavily and wrecked it and then rebuilt the car to race again

how many March F1 741 cars did Brambilla have 1 or 12?

[Simon Hadfield]

Yes, but you rather miss my point. Why is the original chassis - Arch numbered and all - no longer the real car, surely the newly tubbed construct is the continuation car?, If the chassis plate confers such "importance" why is the sale of Chassis plates on ebay and the like so derided? Again I point out that I am stirring the pot here but I feel these are valid questions. Very obviously Brambilla had several iterations of one car....again any one of those entities represents a snapshot of the identity at that moment in time - why then could not any or all of his monocoques be restored (providing the damaged tub exists)?

[Dr. Alexander Lienau]

The complete list of owners and some of the races of my car Chassis No. 10 are published on the chevron heritage webside. The unbroken chain of owners is supported by the orginal papers, meaning the ONS booklet for the car in the seventies and all orginal FIA Papers for the car, owner per owner (they never gave is back to the FIA). In addition there are invoices concerning major rebuilds of the car. Every piece of paper concerning Chassis No. 10 is building the "History of Chassis No. 10" and is associated to my car.

I fully agree that it is very complicate to identify an orginal car only by the chassis No. you need the unbroken chain of owners. Because for sure the first body work of a racing car will be gone after nearly 38 years of continuos racing. For sure all brake disks are new and may be as well the brake pads, calipers etc. and possible the hoses and lines, the electric system all saftey equipment, fuel bag etc. On a higher level of sports car racing you will need for a season a spare engine, which will make things more complicate concerning the history. Every technical part has a life span, which will be more than once over after 38 years of racing.

At the end the most original part will be the main chassis which will have a stamped orginal No at the back end, where arch motors placed it. All the rest may be renewed even most of the panels to the chassis, if you like to have a perfect looking car. I personally think that in period a race car was in perfect condition in all technical and optical aspects when is appeared at a race track.

For sure I accept that people today think otherwise, when they think a car should express his history with a lot of scratches and damage from battles in the past, but I doubt, if that state of a car represents really an original race car as is raced in period.

I think to have cars on the grid in the best technical and correct state to race against is the reason to race with historic cars in a historical correct fashion. The question about chassis Numbers is more the thing for people who are only collectors or even worther investors.

[Simon Hadfield]

I have no issue as to whether your car is or isnt original or that the list of owners is or is not correct (for more on the pitfalls of that read the sorry saga of Brabham BT24/3 elsewhere on the internet.....) but if the above is really how you feel about the need to race the car as it should be then I fail to see why you are racing your car in Supersports. In answer to Johns question, no I have no feelings either way about supersports but it really does get to me when we are at an historic meeting and are getting reamed in scrutineering for a tiny detail on a car when Supersports are on the same bill....I learnt the other day that one of the very high profile cars in that series does not have (and according to my informant is highly unlikely to ever get) papers. If a silhouette series is needed in "historic" racing then I feel we have rather lost sight of what i thought we were trying to achieve.

[henk4]

I think the discussion what should be raced where, should go elsewhere. It seems obvious that if you want to race a car under period conditions, you will only see the podium of most races from a very great distance, unless you are a very talented racing driver
If you don't care about winning but just want to throw the car around to have some fun in any series, that's fine with me.

[allenbrown]

The point that Simon raises is a very good one and is an issue I've discussed with Doug Nye recently as well.

There is no governing body to dictate how the history of old racing cars should be treated. However, various "rules of thumb" have emerged since this particular science was developed by Denis Jenkinson and Norman Smith and one such "rule" is that a car can have a new chassis without changing its identity. If you apply this to the era under discussion here, it is easy for us to imagine a crashed March 733 or Brabham BT21 being stripped of its bodywork, corners, engine, gearbox and so on until a bare frame or monocoque sits on trestles. At that point the damaged chassis is lifted away and a new one put in its place. All the salvageable components are bolted on and the car delivered back to the expectant owner. Same car, just with a new chassis. With mass-produced frames and tubs, this sort of thing happened over and over again in the minor formulae and is well documented in GPs by Jenks.

Even if a different chassis is used - for example a March 732 rebuilt on a 742 chassis after an accident - the car is still regarded as a the same car if you read period reports. Owners didn't seem to regard this as a new car, merely a rebuilt car.

Two problems with this. Firstly, what happens if the original frame is straightened out and built up with fresh components? This leaves us with the uncomfortable situation where there are two claimants to the pre-crash history. Personally, I would regard this newly built, original chassis car as the usurper but I can't deny its claim.

The second problem arises when the chassis constitutes the vast majority of the car. Take the example of a BRM P261 or a McLaren M10B or a 1966 Indy Eagle. These cars could be a viewed as a chassis with some bits attached and the idea of inserting a new chassis and still having the same car becomes less compelling.

In the case of Chevron sports cars, a picture seems to be emerging of owners taking their B19 back to the factory where a new B21 chassis awaits them. They take all the useful bits off their B19 chassis and build up the B21 chassis, leaving the B19 chassis redundant. So has the B19 been turned into a B21 or is the B21 a new car using components from the B19? I can't help feeling that this is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

In my opinion, the way the owner regarded this at the time is a key consideration. Did he think he had a new car or his old car rebuilt? Another key consideration is whether a new chassis plate was issued. In the case of B19s turning into B21s, new plates do seem to have been issued.

So when the original B19 chassis is salvaged and built back up as a B19 and also the B21, being regarded as a rebuilt B19, is converted back to its B19 specification, we have two B19s where originally there was one. If the B19 had already been rebuilt on a new chassis after a crash, we could have three. If a B23 out there also claims continuity back to B19 form, we could have four. It is too simplistic to say that one is real and the other three are fakes.

For these reasons, I think it is dangerous to take a purist view of these cars. The answer is to document every step of a car's life and to also document the history of other claimants to the same identity. Once all the facts are known, the name-calling tends to stop.

Allen

[driftwood]

Simon said
Yes, but you rather miss my point.I have seen where you where heading Why is the original chassis - Arch numbered and all - no longer the real car,where do you start and stop ie replacing an 18 year old race car with new chassis and body or a seriously shunted car with the same parts must surely constitute the car is alive and well with the chassis plate fitted and can race tomorrow and show its lineage with the owner(s) over the years -IF the old chassis body combo complete with stamped AM number whether chassi is straight or bent needs repair can not claim title to its VIN plate as that ha smove don but is merely a pile of used race car parts
If i take 3 legs from a Queen ann chair worth £30k and replace them with same material same shape refit to the chair is still "original" Queen ann chair wiorth £30k or there abouts- so can i take the 3 legs and create another " Original" Queen ann chair worth even half to 75% of the original chair value or do i have a replica Queen ann chair worh 10-20% of the original article?
surely the newly tubbed construct is the continuation car?,I would say it is the continuation ofthe original chassis numbered car ( with a blemished history now) BUT the pile of used parts do not give credence to rebuilding the car as the same number or even be allowed to insinuate it could be
If the chassis plate confers such "importance" why is the sale of Chassis plates on ebay and the like so derided?do you buy them and use them
Again I point out that I am stirring the pot here but I feel these are valid questions. Very obviously Brambilla had several iterations of one car....again any one of those entities represents a snapshot of the identity at that moment in time - why then could not any or all of his monocoques be restored (providing the damaged tub exists)?I have 4 of them in my shed i have more money than sense so i now commission you to rebuild them all fit new plates with correct number and enter all of them for you me and your mates ( i have no friends) intoTGP/Masters F1 races get FIA papers- what do you say now? -ok u decline the contract and another company does the work and i arrive with the 4 cars at the track and your client has the last version from the last race unmolested time warp car from the Brambilla museum restored by you for him/you to race what do you say then?--OK im playing devils advocate

Allen

I do not believe B19 cars went back to Bolton and where refitted into B21 chassis ( 1 and the same) i believe some of the cars ran B19 plates with B21 bodywork ( some B16 cars went back to Bolton and had replacement chassis for B19 race cars some where given new plates with same number as the B16 had ie 3 or 4 or 7 others had numbers allocated in the build number sequence) 1 poss 2 cars where returned later into B16 cars and i know 1 B16 ran as B19 21 poss 23 now as B16 again with original owner
i also believe some newly built 21 cars where updated to B23 again simple bodywork difference possibly a wishbone toelink change due to new tyre design
The B19 21 cars where often entered into races as updated to newer model for reasons such as start money was higher for newer cars or the sales patter to get the rental driver into your team car
take the chevron book and add up the number of B19 21 23 cars built- there where NEVER that many cars built as i know that at least 5 B19 cars rolled over into B21 and 2 or 3 B21 into B23 plus we know 2 or 3 B16 cars became B19 or 21 cars


Bottom line is i do not believe the used pile of race parts can claim title to the chassis number of the car as its right to do so was terminated by the then owner when he rebuilt the car into new chassis bodywork

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by allenbrown

For these reasons, I think it is dangerous to take a purist view of these cars. The answer is to document every step of a car's life and to also document the history of other claimants to the same identity. Once all the facts are known, the name-calling tends to stop.

Allen

Your whole post is excellent, Allen, and this summary says it all to me.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by driftwood

Bottom line is i do not believe the used pile of race parts can claim title to the chassis number of the car as its right to do so was terminated by the then owner when he rebuilt the car into new chassis bodywork

Sure, but what about the chassis that remains intact with its chassis plate and isn't destroyed, and later has all the suitable bits hung back on it? That chassis has been around Spa, Monza, Silverstone, or wherever, in period when it's replacement hadn't even been fabricated. You cannot deny it its history. As Allen says the important part is to document everything.

[Simon Hadfield]

At the risk of incurring Johns displeasure (!) again Mr Driftwood sir I feel you have overlooked the main thrust of my questioning, as Allen says the rules of thumb have suggested that there is a lineage with any car, what I am asking is why does the original tub/chassis/construction suddenly become not the car that so and so drove? By any logic that was the real thing - it surely cannot instantly not be! My point about chassis plates was that if this is such a major factor in the probity of a car then why the outcry about their sale or trade. Now Im going to go and have to worry about whether or not a car can have probity....!

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

At the risk of incurring Johns displeasure (!) again Mr Driftwood sir I feel you have overlooked the main thrust of my questioning, as Allen says the rules of thumb have suggested that there is a lineage with any car, what I am asking is why does the original tub/chassis/construction suddenly become not the car that so and so drove? By any logic that was the real thing - it surely cannot instantly not be! My point about chassis plates was that if this is such a major factor in the probity of a car then why the outcry about their sale or trade. Now Im going to go and have to worry about whether or not a car can have probity....!

Not too long ago I was chatting via email with an historic car owner who suddenly revealed that not only had he the original car in question but TWO chassis plates with the same chassis number on them!

It is a minefield and probably better removed from the Chevron B19 thread and given its own life.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Steve Wilkinson

It is a minefield and probably better removed from the Chevron B19 thread and given its own life.

agreed, but why do so many mines have the name Chevron stamped on them?

[allenbrown]

It's a minefield that is very specific to the B19s. I can't think of any other model of racing cars where more cars have been built/rebuilt for historic racing. Even the March 712M did not multiply quite like B19s.

So I think this discussion does belong here.